Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Halenar v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA, 504 P.2d 928.

41 citing documents.

EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
EDONNA v. Heckman 253 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Ct., , (“There is, of course, no common law right of action for wrongful death.”); Solomon, 107 Ariz. at 428 , 489 P.2d at 238 (“The right of action for wrongful death is purely statuto-ry____).
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
(citing Halenar, 109 Ariz. at 29 , 504 P.2d at 930 ).
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(“[T]he right to recover damages for wrongful death ‘is not placed beyond the power of the legislature to abrogate by § 6 of Article 18 of the Arizona Constitution’ and ‘can be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the legislature.” ’).
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(“[I]f the right to sue is granted, by § 31 of Article 2 the legislature cannot place a limitation upon the recovery such as is found in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.”); , (statutory abolition of collateral source evidentiary
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
our supreme court stated that the right to recover damages for wrongful death “is not placed beyond the power of the legislature to abrogate by § 6 of Article 18 of the Arizona Constitution” and “can be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the legislature.” Although the Ninth Circuit
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
Smith v. Myers 887 P.2d 541 Ariz. 1994
(“[I]f the right to sue is granted, by § 31 of Article 2 the legislature cannot place a limitation upon the recovery____”).
Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co. 861 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1993
Mardian Const. Co. v. Sup. Court, Maricopa Cty. 754 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Mardian Const. Co. v. Sup. Court, Maricopa Cty. 754 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co.
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Kilpatrick, 105 Ariz. at 419 , 466 P.2d at 24 ; , (legislature bound by the constitution in dealing with common law rights of action).
Bussanich v. Douglas 733 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bussanich v. Douglas 733 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The supreme court reviewed the amendment in 1972 and reiterated its holding in Kilpatrick : “Absent constitutional authority, the legislature cannot interfere with a worker’s rights to sue a co-employee.”
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc. 715 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n 698 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Hills v. Salt River Project Ass'n 698 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
436 , wherein Division 2 of this court stated: , held unconstitutional that part of A.R.S.
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
for the proposition that the doctrine of exclusive remedy has no application to wrongful death actions.
Canez v. Polanco 584 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Canez v. Polanco 584 P.2d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
23-1023(B) applies to suits against fellow employees stating: “ , held unconstitutional that part of A.R.S.
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 536 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Mariscal v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 536 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Russell v. Beck 528 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Russell v. Beck 528 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
held unconstitutional that part of A.R.S.
Citizen's Utility, Inc. v. Livingston 515 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Citizen's Utility, Inc. v. Livingston 515 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
3 Appellee claims that the recent case of Halenar v. Superior Court, In and For County of Maricopa, , is contra to appellant’s position in that it holds that A.R:S. § 23-1022 (A) does not apply to wrongful death cases and further holds that Article 2, § 31 4 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits application of the employer immunity found in the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Huebner v. Deuchle 514 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1973
Huebner v. Deuchle 514 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1973